Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gobeer 03-12-07, 12:30 PM	I was just trying to find a ruling on Two-Weapon Rend from PHB 2. Does this feat work if the wielder is using a double weapon such as an Orc Double Axe?
jaelis 03-12-07, 12:37 PM	Yes. Nothing to suggest otherwise.
bykov1 03-12-07, 02:09 PM	I would think by definition, that you could not. The inferrence I take is that you pull apart both blades at the same time to inflict more damage. This would be rather difficult with a double weapon. Bykov.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 03:51 PM	Realism-wise, no. Game mechanics-wise, yes. Stick to game mechanics unless you also want restrict Cleave to slashing weapons, rewrite the falling rules, and change a host of other rules that suspend the laws of physics.
Yadot 03-12-07, 04:06 PM	I would think by definition, that you could not. The inferrence I take is that you pull apart both blades at the same time to inflict more damage. This would be rather difficult with a double weapon. Bykov. Think of it this way: You swing with your sword and hit your enemy, then wip the other end around and hit him again. While the blade is in your opponet you take a step forward, sliding the weapon in to deal the extra damage.
shadowsofwhite 03-12-07, 09:00 PM	Realism-wise, no. Game mechanics-wise, yes. Stick to game mechanics unless you also want restrict Cleave to slashing weapons, rewrite the falling rules, and change a host of other rules that suspend the laws of physics. True, realistically, you could not "rend" with a double weapon, lest it be a Scissor Sword. Double weapons rarely, if ever, have both weapons on the same end, which means that you cannot rend with it, especially since you would not be able to pull the two weapons in opposite directions, which is effectively what rending is. Game mechanics-wise, however, the feat would apply to double weapons. Cleave would be ridiculous to restrict to slashing weapons only. Clubs and hammers could very well sweep away multiple foes, though it would have to be backed by either considerable strength, or weight. Piercing weapons, on the other hand, should only be able to cleave in a straight line. So, if you skewer someone with your spear, you could take a five foot step forward to skewer the guy behind him (this would be impractical to take any further than that and would be unfeasible to do with anything other than spears).
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 10:46 PM	Cleave would be ridiculous to restrict to slashing weapons only. Clubs and hammers could very well sweep away multiple foes, though it would have to be backed by either considerable strength, or weight. Piercing weapons, on the other hand, should only be able to cleave in a straight line. So, if you skewer someone with your spear, you could take a five foot step forward to skewer the guy behind him (this would be impractical to take any further than that and would be unfeasible to do with anything other than spears). I was simply basing it off the fact the cleave means to cut or pierce something, therefore would not apply to bludgeoning weapons, and as you mentioned, you would need to take an extra step (or be large or larger) to threaten the space behind the target and "realistically" cleave with a piercing weapon, assuming of course it is a spear-like piercing weapon. It would have to be one very unique pick to go through one person and hit another 5 ft behind. However, despite your nitpicking, you apparently got the point of the examples, which is not to nitpick the rules.
Vaelan 03-12-07, 11:14 PM	Think about it this way: instead of using two weapons to rip through them twice, you use the fact that you're wielding the weapon two-handed, in a sense, to make a deeper, more vicious cut with only one head.
SoulReaverX 03-13-07, 12:59 AM	i can picture a diffrent way to make sense of rending with a double weapon: essentially, almost all double weapons have 2 seperate ends and a handle in the middle for you to grasp. as you slash them with first hit, you could just essentially spin the double weapon so that the other end goes through the same cut in the same way, kind of like a quick double strike.
runestar 03-13-07, 02:17 AM	Mechanically yes, since the purpose of the feat is simply to let you do more damage contingent with hitting with 2 attacks. If you don't like the flavour of the feat, then simply rewrite it, since it has no impact on the power level of the feat whatsoever (save for a few exceptions).:)
Gobeer 03-14-07, 12:08 AM	Thanks for the help.
UnknownMourner 03-14-07, 12:33 AM	Yes.
Trevhippy 03-14-07, 11:28 AM	Erm, I gonna piggy back on this topic and ask an unrelated question... If a rogue with TWF qualifies for sneak attack damage, hits with both his weapons and gets a rend, does sneak attack damage apply to the rend attack? --Trev
RavingDork 03-14-07, 11:50 AM	No, the feat specifically says you need two weapons both in the introductory flavor text (You wield two weapons with an artisan's precision.) and in the mechanical portion (If you successfully hit an opponent with both of the weapons you wield...). A double weapon is simply a single weapon with two heads, therefore it does not qualify for this feat's trick.
Frugal 03-14-07, 12:36 PM	Erm, I gonna piggy back on this topic and ask an unrelated question... If a rogue with TWF qualifies for sneak attack damage, hits with both his weapons and gets a rend, does sneak attack damage apply to the rend attack? --Trev I'd say no, there's no attack roll so there's no precision damage. The same as how you can't crit with the rend damage. If he qualified for sneak attack then he's already taken it twice (once for each weapon), don't get greedy.
jadehawk 03-14-07, 01:25 PM	I think what was determined in this thread is that the feat name is not indicative of all the uses of the ability. And that is likely the case of many feats. Sure, two-weapon rend probably fits the bill of what most characters will use this tactical ability to take advantage of a double strike dealing additional damage, much the same as a well swung axe fits the term cleave. But just as a maul slamming into four enemies in a wild sweap may not cleave them, it would certainly do the same trick as the cleave feat. Unfortunately there is a thin line between the name of feats and the spirit of the feat, and often an equally thin line between the spirit of the feat and the game mechanics.
Dragonteuthis 03-14-07, 02:52 PM	No, the feat specifically says you need two weapons both in the introductory flavor text (You wield two weapons with an artisan's precision.) and in the mechanical portion (If you successfully hit an opponent with both of the weapons you wield...). A double weapon is simply a single weapon with two heads, therefore it does not qualify for this feat's trick. PHB, page 160: "You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons." Page 113: "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons..." Quite clearly, you count as if fighting with two weapons when using a double weapon this way, so yes, you can use the feat.
RavingDork 03-14-07, 04:05 PM	Quite clearly, you count as if fighting with two weapons when using a double weapon this way, so yes, you can use the feat. I couldn't disagree more. The text you are quoting is referring to two-weapon fighting penalties. You are taking it out of context. That doesn't change that a two-bladed sword or a quarterstaff is still just one weapon. :rolleyes:
Drodain 03-14-07, 04:23 PM	The quarterstaff and two-bladed sword are both just one weapon but they are treated as two weapons as has been quoted above. You get the positive and negative aspects from both. Just as if something said you were not allowed to fight with two weapons I would not allowed someone to use a double weapon as if it were two weapons. It is not game breaking to allow it even if you do not agree with me. The flavor of the feat does not need to be kept either. "I don't rend the people with my attack, I just have trained with the weapon to the point that I can place my second attack in a good place in relation to my first attack." If that's still not okay lets create another feat that does something identical only says for someone weilding a double weapon and using it as two weapons and we'll call it "Double-Weapon Rend".
Skeld the Superstitious 03-14-07, 06:35 PM	Here's another piggy-back: Say you have a PC that normally gets 2 attaks/round due to BAB and that character has taken Improved Two-Weapon fighting, giving him a total of 4 attacks/round; if said character hits with all 4 attacks, does he get to apply rend damage twice? Interesting question and makes the feat much more useful to higher level characters. -Skeld
Dragonteuthis 03-14-07, 06:41 PM	I couldn't disagree more. The text you are quoting is referring to two-weapon fighting penalties. You are taking it out of context. That doesn't change that a two-bladed sword or a quarterstaff is still just one weapon. :rolleyes: No, of course a quarterstaff is just one weapon. But, as I have noted, the rules state not once, but twice, that a double weapon counts as two weapons when fighting certain ways. If you do not believe me and do not have a PHB handy, I will be happy to provide links to the appropriate sections in the SRD (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35).
Frugal 03-14-07, 06:42 PM	Here's another piggy-back: Say you have a PC that normally gets 2 attaks/round due to BAB and that character has taken Improved Two-Weapon fighting, giving him a total of 4 attacks/round; if said character hits with all 4 attacks, does he get to apply rend damage twice? Interesting question and makes the feat much more useful to higher level characters. Well you do your attack routine from highest to lowest bonus so if you had +6/+1 and were fighting with ITWF you'd be at +4/+4/-1/-1 (assuming light weapon off hand), so I'd resolve it as it happens, you swing with the primary weapon and hit, then off-hand weapon and hit, rend, you swing with the primary again and hit then off-hand again, then rend again. But you have to hit with both weapons to get rend damage so you couldn't hit twice with your primary weapon and miss with your off-hand both times and claim rend damage.
Skeld the Superstitious 03-14-07, 06:48 PM	But you have to hit with both weapons to get rend damage so you couldn't hit twice with your primary weapon and miss with your off-hand both times and claim rend damage. Yes, kind of what I was getting at with that example. For a ITWF PC with 4 attacks/round, 4 successful attacks would also mean 2 rends. -Skeld
Frugal 03-14-07, 07:09 PM	Yes, kind of what I was getting at with that example. For a ITWF PC with 4 attacks/round, 4 successful attacks would also mean 2 rends. -Skeld You missed the part where I said work out the attacks in order, if you hit with both a primary and off-hand weapon the deal rend, then keep going with your attack routine. Or in other words, if you hit with all 4 attacks you will get rend twice. But it's worked out in the order of primary weapon hit, off-hand hits, rend, 2nd attack with primary weapon hits, 2nd attack with off-hand hits, rend.
RavingDork 03-14-07, 07:56 PM	The feat specifically prohibits more than one rend attack against the same target in any given round. Therefore, if you have two attacks with each weapon, than you could rend twice only if you split your atttacks between two opponents.
Frugal 03-14-07, 08:22 PM	The feat specifically prohibits more than one rend attack against the same target in any given round. Therefore, if you have two attacks with each weapon, than you could rend twice only if you split your atttacks between two opponents. Ah, didn't have my books in front of me. But that goes back to what I was saying about the order of your attacks being important. If you hit with both weapons on the 1st target and then rend your attacks on the 2nd are both with your iterative attacks.
ThePope 03-15-07, 02:47 AM	Ah, didn't have my books in front of me. But that goes back to what I was saying about the order of your attacks being important. If you hit with both weapons on the 1st target and then rend your attacks on the 2nd are both with your iterative attacks. except in his question he specifically stated "if all 4 attacks hit" therefore he's not worrying about matching MH and OH...
Frugal 03-15-07, 08:42 AM	except in his question he specifically stated "if all 4 attacks hit" therefore he's not worrying about matching MH and OH... Yep, and that's why I stressed that you have to track your primary and off-hand attacks and resolve them in the correct order.
bykov1 03-16-07, 03:33 PM	PHB, page 160: "You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons." Page 113: "A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons..." Quite clearly, you count as if fighting with two weapons when using a double weapon this way, so yes, you can use the feat. Quite clearly it says "as if". It does not say you are weilding two weapons. This "as if" implies quite clearly that you are using a single weapon. Bykov.
Dragonteuthis 03-16-07, 03:52 PM	Quite clearly it says "as if". It does not say you are weilding two weapons. This "as if" implies quite clearly that you are using a single weapon. Bykov. Yes...but you are treated as if weilding two weapons. And nowhere does it say "But only for the purposes of calculating penalties for dual-weilding." By your logic, you cannot gain any benefit from Improved Two-Weapon Fighting when using a double weapon because of the wording of the feat, which is absolutely ridiculous. Right?